Williams v. Franklin Township Academical Ass'n

26 Ind. 310
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 26 Ind. 310 (Williams v. Franklin Township Academical Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Franklin Township Academical Ass'n, 26 Ind. 310 (Ind. 1866).

Opinion

Elliott, J.

The appellee, claiming to be a corporation duly organized under the laws of this State, sued Williams, the appellant, on an article of subscription. The complaint was several times amended. Demurrers to the second and fifth paragraphs were finally overruled. On these paragraphs issues of fact were formed, and there was a trial by jury. Einding and judgment for the plaintiff.

The second paragraph of the complaint alleges, in substance, that on the 1st of March, 1860, the plaintiff, being a corporation duly incorporated in pursuance of the laws of the State of Indiana, undertook to build, in or near the town of Hillsboro, in Wayne county, Indiana, a school house, and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits to be derived therefrom, the defendant and others made and delivered to the plaintiff the following subscription, or agreement in writing, to-wit:

“We, the undersigned, agree to pay the amount to our names attached, for the purpose of building a school house in or near Hillsboro, Wayne county, Indiana; said amount to be paid as follows: one-half within three months after the job of building has been let, and the remainder within nine months, or at the completion of the building. All subscriptions to be paid according to the articles of compact.

“William Williams,......20 shares,......$100 00.”

The complaint then further avers that by the articles of compact, the capital' stock of said association consisted of •shares, each share being five dollars, and that the defendant, by signing the subscription, undertook and promised to pay to the capital stock of the association the amount of twenty shares, one hundred dollars. It is further averred that the [312]*312plaintiff had built and finished the school house; that after the lapse of three months from the letting of the building, the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff fifty dollars, being one-half of the amount of his subscription, but refused to do so; that on the faith of the subscription of the defendant and others, the plaintiff had erected, finished and furnished the school house, and though more than nine months had elapsed since the making of the subscription, the defendant refused to pay the same, or any part thereof, to the plaintiff’s damage, &c.

The fifth paragraph avers that pursuant to the statute in such cases made and provided, on the ' — day of March, 1859, the defendant, with divers other persons, for the purpose of building a school house, at or near Hillsboro, in said county, associated themselves together as a corporation, and made and entered into a compact and articles of association, together with a written subscription agreement attached, by which the defendant agreed to take twenty shares of the stock of said corporation, and to pay the plaintiff therefor the sum of $100; that confiding in said agreement and subscription, the plaintiff* let the building of the school house, and built the same at a cost of $2,000, a large portion of which remained unpaid, whereby the defendant became liable to pay said plaintiff* said sum of $100. The articles of association and the agreement of subscription are made part of the paragraph by incorporation. The latter is the same set out in the second paragraph of the complaint. The articles of association, or so much thereof as is material to the question of the sufficiency of the complaint, are as follows:

“1. "We, the undersigned, agree to form ourselves into an association for the purpose of building a school house', in or near HiUsboro, Wayne county, Indiana.

2 The association shall be known as the Franklin Township Academical Association.

3. The stock shall be divided into shares of five dollars each.

[313]*313“ 5. The officers of this association shall "be' a president, secretary and treasurer, whose duties shall be such as are common to persons in those stations, and who shall hold their offices one year.

“ 7. The secretary shall keep a book of records in which shall be noted all donations made to the company.

“ 8. Each stockholder shall be liable for the payment of the amount annexed to his name, in the following manner, to-wit: One-half within three months after the commencement of the building, and the remainder within nine months, or at the completion of the building.

“10. This company shall be permanently organized by the election of the proper officers whenever there shall be two hundred shares subscribed.”

The subscription paper made a part of the complaint shows that more than two hundred shares <had been subscribed to the stock of the association.

It is urged that the second paragraph of the complaint1 is bad because the articles of association are not made a part of the paragraph. The paragraph is not based on the articles of association but on the agreement of subscription, which that paragraph alleges was made and executed to the plaintiff, a corporation then in existence, and duly organized according to law. The manner of the organization or its specific objects are not disclosed in that paragraph of the complaint, nor was it necessary that they should be. The name of the association- imports such a corporation as the laws of the State authorized, and it is averred that it was a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State, and that the defendant contracted with it as such. These allegations, in connection with the article of subscription, which is set out, are sufficient to show a valid cause of action, and at least a prima fade right in the plaintiff" to sue, and hence the court did right in overruling the demurrer.

Two objections are urged to the fifth paragraph of the complaint. The first is, that the articles of association which [314]*314are set out, show that the association is not such an one as could become incorporated under any law of this State. At the date of the alleged organization, we had a statute in force, entitled “ An act for the incorporation of high schools, academies, colleges, universities, theological institutions and missionary boards,” approved February 28, 1855. The first section of that act authorizes the organization of corporations for the establishment of high schools, academies, &c. It does not define what particular features shall be requisite to constitute a high school, or an academy, or what particular branches of learning shall be taught in either; yet the terms “-high schools and academies,” as used in the act, seem to have reference to the organization for the establishment, government, control and management of a school or seminary of learning, rather than to the mere erection of a building for such a purpose.

A corporation properly organized under the statute for the establishment of a high school, or academy, is authorized to purchase and hold real estate and to erect suitable buildings for its use and convenience, in carrying out the proper objects of its organization; but merely building a school house, or erecting a seminary building, is not establishing a high school or seminary within the meaning of the act.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Mexican Agr. Land Co.
1912 OK 234 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Jennings v. Dark
92 N.E. 778 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle
54 N.E. 407 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1899)
Wheeler v. Thayer
22 N.E. 972 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
People v. Selfridge
52 Cal. 331 (California Supreme Court, 1877)
Cayuga Lake Railroad v. Kyle
5 Thomp. & Cook 659 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Nelson v. Blakey
47 Ind. 38 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Indianapolis Furnace & Mining Co. v. Herkimer
46 Ind. 142 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Haun v. Mulberry & Jefferson Gravel Road Co.
33 Ind. 103 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1870)
Piper v. Rhodes
30 Ind. 309 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1868)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Ind. 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-franklin-township-academical-assn-ind-1866.